River offers something for everyone

Yesterday I helped out with Foothill Conservancy's umpteenth Mokelumne River Cleanup on the river's Electra run. Spending the day down by the river reminded me how much the Mokelumne offers something for everyone.

The land-locked Kokanee salmon were spawning, so the beach was full of people fishing. There were tiny kids with tiny fishing rods, just extracted from their plastic and cardboard packaging; teens with rods bent and fish on; whole families together, fishing and playing on the beach. They were joined by more seasoned anglers, too -- men with waders and better gear and nets --who were reeling in fish after fish.

The river was low, so the Kokanee were easy to spot in the water. It looked like you could walk in and simply net them. I heard one young guy say, "I have fish lounging against my legs."

Raptors could see the Kokanee, too. A mature bald eagle and an osprey were diving for lunch, oblivious to the volunteers picking up trash, anglers on the banks, and kayakers navigating the rapids.

Farther downstream, a fly fisherman was working just below the rapid know as The Slot. Below the Highway 49 bridge, a couple was panning for gold.

The fall color on the river is especially wonderful this year. The California grapes, oaks, cottonwood and other riparian plants are trending from pale yellow to deepest red. Contrast that with the river's range of blues and greens, and it's hard to imagine anything more lovely.

Since Electra is heavily used, some river lovers avoid it. There's plenty of evidence of damage to the river banks (why is it that people insist on driving right down to a river that's only 50 feet from the road -- even going so far as to pull out big boulders put there to keep cars off the bank?), and sometimes a fair amount of trash. One couple working the cleanup said they hadn't been there for years because it's so popular. But after a few hours at Electra, they were once again taken in by the river's beauty.

People who aren't river-oriented tend to forget that we have this wonderful resource for recreation, relaxation, and recharge a short drive south of Jackson. But plenty of people know it's there. And as our county becomes more urbanized, places like Electra, where we can get out with friends and family and bask in the glory of nature, will be even more precious than they are today.

You can help keep the Mokelumne a river future generations can enjoy on a fine fall day by signing on to support including the Mokelumne in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Thoughts on fire and sprawl

Watching the fires in Southern California is sobering. While we don't face the Santa Ana winds here in the Central Sierra, our forested areas and chaparral are, much like those to the south, fire-adapted ecosystems. Fires are a normal part of the ecology.

When we fill the forest and chaparral with scattered houses, creating the so-called "wildland-urban interface," we create a greater risk of the kind of destruction we're seeing down south this week.

We may not have the Santa Anas, but we can get some fast-moving fires of our own, like the Power Fire that burned in the North Fork Mokelumne canyon in 2004. That fire could have jumped Highway 88 and burned west into populated areas of the county with impunity had nature not intervened in the form of cold rain and wet snow. Let's all hope the south state gets that kind of break soon.

As Amador County updates its general plan, the county would do well to consider how to protect life and property through land use planning that takes the reality of fire into account.

It makes no sense from a fire protection point of view to encourage the development of more small parcels and homes in the county's rural areas. Compact, town-centered development is a much better way to address the human, environmental and economic cost of fire.

Excellent recommendations related to sprawl and fire are found in the latest publication from the Sierra Nevada Alliance, Dangerous Development: Wildfire and Rural Sprawl in the Sierra Nevada. Everyone who cares about land use planning in the Sierra and California should read this publication.

A tale of two counties: compact development and the general plan

Calaveras County is beginning to update its general plan. To help guide the process, the supervisors held a "visioning" meeting last week to discuss the county's future. As reported in local and regional newspapers, the board came down solidly on the side of avoiding sprawl in favor of town-centered, compact development.

Even Supervisor Tom Tryon, a property rights advocate and former Libertarian candidate for statewide office, supported locating development where it can be served with municipal water and wastewater systems.

Two of the county supervisors supported incorporating the Ahwahnee Principles into the county plan. Supervisor Steve Wilensky supported incorporating principles adopted by local communities in Calaveras District 2.

It was encouraging to see the Calaveras supervisors recognize that compact, town-centered development can protect the county's agriculture, natural resources, water quality and community character.

Contrast that with Amador County. First, we have the new defenders of sprawl, the Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, emerging to support the Placerization of Amador. Funny how what they say sounds exactly like the complaints of developer Bob Reeder at the county General Plan Advisory Committee meetings.

Then there's a pretty clear split on the GPAC between members who see the wisdom of town-centered development and a strong general plan, and those who want to continue the ad hoc, project-by-project sprawl that has characterized local growth over the last 40 years. The latter are trying to make the general plan as toothless as possible.

The cost of continuing sprawl development patterns has been brought to light at nearly every GPAC meeting over the last year. We've talked about fire, water, recreation, schools, roads, air quality, historical and cultural resources, agriculture, wildlife, economic development and more. In every instance, compact development has less impact than sprawl. In every instance, the things people love most about the county are better protected by concentrating development in compact communities than by chopping ranches and forestland into subdivisions.

At its early meetings, the GPAC came up with a pretty good vision statement for the county's future. There was broad agreement about what the county should be like 20+ years from now.

As the GPAC -- then the planning commission and board of supervisors -- continue slogging toward a general plan, they need to keep that vision in mind, and ask: Will this get us to the future we envision?

If the answer is no, the general plan is clearly heading down the wrong path. If the answer is maybe, that's the wrong path, too. And if the general plan is just too fuzzy to serve as a clear path to the vision at all, we'll end up looking like Placer, not Amador, County in the end.

Once you have a destination in mind, it's better to develop a clear route than to wander in the wilderness in hope that you might just get there one day.

Open letter to Raheem Hosseini re his global warming editorial

Today's Amador Ledger Dispatch includes a fine editorial by Raheem Hosseini on the county supervisors' recent rejection of the Cool Counties initiative and his disappointment at the lack of public outcry. I started to write Raheem an e-mail in response, but decided to publish the content here, instead . . .

Hi, Raheem:

Just so you know, it's not that local enviros like me don't understand the implications of global warming or think the county shouldn't get on board. We just try to be judicious regarding which battles to fight, where, when, and how.

Public hearings on issues of this type are opportunities for demagoguery and seldom lead to anything very positive or productive. And chiding the supervisors after the fact isn't productive at all, at least not from where I sit.

At the risk of sounding like the older person I am fast becoming, I have to say that I was much quicker to jump to a fight when I was 25 than I am now. It's not that I don't have as many opinions, or that they are any less strong, but I have a different perspective on how to get things done.

For example, I'd rather slog through countless hours of review and edits and discussion of county general plan goals and policies that can reduce local GHG generation for the next 20 years (as I have been doing over the last six weeks) than spend just one hour in a hearing that will have little impact in the long run --- especially if it means listening to people who know nothing about the issue go on and on about it.

Of course, since the Ledger isn't covering the General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, you don't know about all the work that's going into those goals and policies -- or the conflicts playing out between people who want the plan to actually do something and those who are trying to make it as toothless as possible.

So from my perspective, expending a lot of energy on the Cool Counties resolution didn't fall under the category of time well spent. That may disappoint you -- it's obvious you wanted more from local enviros on the issue than we gave you this time -- but please consider that sometimes a lack of outcry may just mean that the would-be outcryers (sp?) are out working their fingers off making real change rather than jumping at opportunities to beat their heads against a wall.

That never works and you just end up with a headache.

Thanks for being out there using your bully pulpit to advantage. Loved the redacted W-2 reference.

Best,
Katherine

Who's being "responsible"?

There's a new group in the county, the "Amador Citizens for Responsible Government." Sounds good, right? Who's opposed to responsible government?

But like many things, what sounds good may not hold up to closer scrutiny. This particular group's thoughts on what constitutes responsible government are pretty questionable.

The group opposes efforts to combat global warming, which it calls a "scientifically-discredited theory." They recently convinced the Amador County Board of Supervisors not to sign on to a national "Cool County" resolution pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Apparently, these "responsible" guys (19 of their 20 "Executive Council" members are guys) think they know more about climate science than the the Nobel Peace Prize committee and major world scientific institutions.

They've shown up at recent meetings of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee to oppose consideration of global warming in the update of the county general plan -- even after the county's consultant described how the state is suing counties that fail to take global warming into account.

Is that responsible? I don't think so. Failing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions could result in serious consequences for this and future generations. That doesn't sound responsible to me. It sounds selfish and short-sighted, especially when common sense solutions exist.

If our county disregards global warming-related state law, it leaves itself open to lawsuits. Is that responsible? Last time I checked, our county didn't have money to waste on lawsuits that can easily be avoided. I know I don't want my tax dollars spent that way.

This group also opposes smart growth planning principles, which center around building denser, walkable communities where services and infrastructure are available -- much like the small towns we love in our county now.

Providing government services and infrastructure to compact development is much cheaper than serving homes spread all over the rural countryside. It is easier to protect homes from wildland fire. It costs less to maintain roads.

Compact development reduces the need for new school construction, school buses, new roads, new sewer facilities, water lines, fire stations, and more. It ensures that natural areas will continue to provide "ecological services" such as clean water and clean air. It supports our tourism economy by keeping the county beautiful and rural. It keeps our working landscapes contributing to the local culture and economy.

Smart growth can be cheaper for builders, too, because they don't need to provide the infrastructure to sprawling homes.

So it's hard to see how opposing smart growth constitutes "responsible government."

The group is also opposed to the new Amador Regional Planning Committee -- a group formed to help ensure better coordination of land use planning among our five cities and the county. The committee has no regulatory authority. Absolutely none.

But this new group somehow sees it as a threat, and therefore supports continuing our current system, where coordination of planning efforts is spotty, at best -- with the obvious consequences we're seeing in our county today.

Responsible? I think not.

So what is this group for? They say they're for "limited government." But best I can tell, they're really for unfettered growth of the type that threatens our natural environment and quality of life -- the kind of growth we've seen turn much of rural California into sprawling, undifferentiated suburbs. They want that sort of growth here, too, regardless of the cost.

And if you ask me, that is anything but responsible.

Jackson does need help, but not Jackson Hills

It looks like Jackson's City Council will complete the approval of the Jackson Hills project on Monday night, September 10. Some locals think the city council members have been "bought off" by the developers.

I don't. I think it's more likely that the council members feel like they have to do something to address the challenges facing Jackson today: a distressed downtown, the loss of sales tax-generating businesses to the county, and the need to develop wastewater disposal alternatives.

The council is approving Jackson Hills because it's been sold to them as the solution to these problems. And they've bought the package, despite the many questions that surround it.

It's an easy fix, right? Approve one subdivision and all of Jackson's problems will go away. Problem is, closer scrutiny shows that Jackson Hills is not the solution, and before long, the city will have the same problems it had before, compounded by the problems that come with Jackson Hills, including gridlock in the south part of town.

There are other options.

Let's take downtown first. Years ago, when the county government was based in Jackson, county workers went downtown to shop at lunch and after work (I worked briefly in the courthouse, so saw and did this myself). When the government center moved out to Argonaut Heights, the downtown merchants lost that business. Now that the county workers are back on Court Street, has anyone tried to lure them back downtown?

Let's see -- why would county workers -- or Sutter Amador Hospital employees -- shop in Jackson? Maybe if there were free shuttles at lunch time. Maybe if it were easy to grab a loaner bike at the workplace and pedal into town for a sandwich without risking your life in the process. Maybe if there were actually something to buy. Remember, Jackson used to have many businesses that catered primarily to local residents and people working nearby.

Perhaps local business owners need to look at the local market again. The city could help by funding some market research and making it available for free to local businesses, working with the two big employers in town, and going back to some of the good plans developed for downtown in the past that are now gathering dust on someone's shelf. A little economic gardening could go a long way.

Also, I've always thought that any big shopping center with a shady parking lot could do a lot more business in summer than those with acres upon acres of unshaded asphalt. Given the choice of shopping at a store with cool parking or one without, I know which one I'd pick on a hot summer day. Urban forest grants could green up Jackson's shopping center lots for those who aren't going to go downtown and make them more competitive with the businesses in Mart-hell.

The sales tax loss is a hard problem to solve. Jackson always had unusually high sales tax revenue, thanks to its car dealerships. One could see how big a problem that loss was going to be years ago when the county decided to create the Mario Biagi Sales Tax Sacrifice Zone in Martell.

Home Depot is trying to sell itself as the solution to this problem, while proposing to build in the historic viewshed below the Kennedy Mine. Surely there are other ways to help Jackson renew its business base.

Wastewater disposal is the third big challenge. Spraying treated wastewater on local ranch lands is one good solution. And unlike a golf course, irrigated cattle pastures don't come with 580 houses and nearly 6,000 car trips a day.

As Jackson works on long-term wastewater solutions, the city could immediately reduce its wastewater volume by conducting water audits for every household to identify water-wasting practices. It could also subsidize the purchase of low-flush toilets and modern, water-saving clothes washers.

A new washing machine of the right type uses only 35%-50% as much water as older models -- that's water going into the wastewater system today. Everyone wins -- the homeowner spends less on water and power and the city has less wastewater to treat. The city would save money, too. Muncipal wastewater treatment requires a great deal of electricity.

Just as there is no free lunch, there is no simple solution for Jackson's problems. But there are alternatives to a big, environmentally destructive, dumb-growth subdivision that threatens the operation of local ranches. I've name just a few here. I'm sure others could be developed with some concerted effort and creativity.

Real leadership for Jackson means moving ahead with that effort. And it means standing up and taking on these challenges with a view to long-term consequences, not opting for the easy short-term fix -- especially one as suspect as Jackson Hills.

Property rights are not a blank check

Our community is full of independent people who want control over their lives and their land. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

But then there are those who raise the issue of "property rights" every time a land use policy comes along that they don't like -- or when the question of community rights is raised to challenge a subdivision or big-box store or other project that doesn't fit the community, causes gridlock, creates air pollution, destroys habitat, or otherwise creates problems for other people.

There are many misconceptions about property rights. But the truth is, local governments -- that is, our duly elected representatives -- have broad powers to determine what is best for the community and through that process, to control local land use. Those powers include telling people how they can develop and use their property.

Although individuals may have their own definitions of property rights, the courts have in fact defined property rights and "takings" for us. For a good explanation of how it all works, see this handbook from LandWatch Monterey County.